AmateurHetman said:
Again, you are assuming they would compare the arms of non-mutilated vs mutilated and reach that conclusion, but we don't know what beliefs they held. I'm open-minded, which I think is important when approaching history. You on the other hand reject the existence of warrior women completely.
I couldn't care less about existence of warrior women. I am am not political correctness warrior. What I care about is history, the real one that actually existed, instead of gender or other agenda driven caricature. What I care about is that the real history don't gets misinterpreted in the culture, of which computer games are very much part of. And I don't buy in to "it's just an entertainment". It's not. Whether it's intention of developers or not, their product is educating generation of the young people that believe in all sorts of nonsense as a result. Same with film industry which is guilty of this for much longer time. It ends with what you could see during last Olympic Games in Britain when British history representation was screwed on a institutional basis.
Now I don't think that MB is the worst offender here, quit the opposite, they did fairly good job of representing medieval society so far, when compared to some other games or films. But I definitely want that to stay that way and developers not to lower their standards. Better yet to improve them. Historical realism should remain one of the important attributes of the game and developers should know that's what their players appreciate. I do and many others clearly do as well.
AmateurHetman said:
Sure archeological evidence is up to interpretation, but you weren't the one studying the finds.
Yes it is, but you can't change interpretation for evidence and facts.
AmateurHetman said:
The particular women mentioned in the article had injuries etc. that were typical of battle. Now we could hypothesise that these were women slain by another Scythian tribe etc. and buried with weapons, however,
Or you can hypothesize that these were women warriors, as you do. That's the point. It's a speculation, not conclusive evidence. Could these women die fighting? Yes, but so they could have being slaughtered in a yurt by the raiders.
AmateurHetman said:
that doesn't explain why other women were buried without weapons or more typical male attire.
Why not? Many men were buried without weapons as well. Again, that means nothing and anything. It can mean that they were not part of the aristocracy. Or were of the class that was forbidden to carry weapons, say priests, or unfree class. Or those that buried them simply got greedy and decided not to bury weapons with them. And this is not just my opinion, this is opinion of many professional historians, one of whom I have quoted already.
AmateurHetman said:
I reject the Greek legend of the Amazons. However, I do not reject the existence of Scythian female warriors that inspired it. Big difference.
That's your opinion to which you are entitled. But when you are arguing about it, you need to back that up with some evidence. Weapon burials or presence of wounds are not conclusive evidence -as you just said yourself, it's open to interpretation.
AmateurHetman said:
My observation is, that you are narrow-minded and completely against the possibility of women being in battle. You are presented with evidence for Scythian warrior women, yet find any explanation that would make them non-combatants. Instead of saying 'yes being buried with weapons and wounds may support the existence of female warriors' you instead say 'it means nothing'... way to be unbiased.
I don't care what's your observation about me. I am not a SNIP and this is not high school sorority forum. I only care about arguments, facts and evidence you can bring to the discussion.